Campingcar Besinov BAKER TILLY SPIESS S.A. & THE RUSSIAN COOPERATIONS

Campingcar Besinov BAKER TILLY SPIESS S.A. & THE RUSSIAN COOPERATIONS

THE SWISS CRIMES BEHIND THE NEUTRAL FACADE
 
RegisterPublicationsSearchDATABASEHomeLog inFAQ

WISH A GOOD START IN THE NEW WEEK


My Ex: Peter Andel, Swiss Passport Company TscheSlo s.r.o.

Busy with UBS /

has to do with my UBS account, UBS Forex and Baker Tilly. Smrk, CZ-28504 Uhlirske Janovice,

Czech Republic Worked by Schmiedlin AG, Schmiedlin Ltd. England, he has to do with the all cases. Incl. Cybercrime.

TSCHESLO RUSSIA PETER ANDEL, MY HUSBAND

TSCHESLO s.r.o. Russian cooperation

TscheSlo, s.r.o.
tscheslo.czech-trade.ru/ -
TscheSlo, s.r.o.. TscheSlo, s.r.o.. Описание деятельности: ...

ЧехТрейд Интернет Интернет: tscheslo.czech-trade.ru. Офис фирмы:

TscheSlo s.r.o. PETER ANDEL AND FOREX RUSSIA



A PERSON FROM THE COURT CANTON AARGAU, SWITZERLAND WAS BRIBED

BAKER TILLY OBT AG BRUGG

On each complaint has to be your personal informations and domicile.

On my complaint the domicile was wrong.

Thomas Koller and Bernhard Koller are from Niederrohrdorf

Court Aargau: Victor Egloff, Niderrohrdorf

The complaint goes next week to the normal Police


BAKER TILLY-SPIESS S.A. Brno consulting
Address: Příkop 843/4 - 60200
City or town: Brno
Repubblica Ceca
VAT Code: CZ02609231

Moneylaundering, Cybercrime, on the PANAMA PAPERS

with BAKER TILLY HONGKONG and ISLE OF MAN

Corporate Headquarters

42 Wellington Street East
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1C7
Canada
LAWYER SWISS: c/o Froriep, Bellerivestrasse 201, 8008 Zürich

Good Day Christine Andel,
This is the Bank details of my secretary, please send the consultation fee into the

account and let me know after you have done that, okay? If you need anything apart from

this Banking Details, let me know. Thank You.

BANK CONNECTION BAKER UK

His Secretary: Elizabeth Robertson
Nat West Bank (Yeadon Branch)
Account Number is ; 31682162
Swift Code is ; 542160

BAKER`S SERCRETARY IN ENGLAND

BANK CONNECTION BAKER UK


BAKER TILLY ARGENTINA


Цены за открытие банковских счетов RUSSIAN BANK

The following UK Banks are in Connections:

Barclays Bank PLC 1 400 12 UK без присутствия по запросу
Standard Chartered Bank 950 12 UK без присутствия по запросу
Lloyds Bank plc 950 12 UK без присутствия по запросу
The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc 750 10 UK без присутствия по запросу
Coutts International 650 12 UK без присутствия по запросу
Metro Bank PLC 950 10 UK без присутствия по запросу
HSBC Bank plc 1 400 14 UK без присутствия по запросу
Santander UK 950 12 UK без присутствия по запросу
EFG Private Bank 850 12 UK


SBM HOLDING NETHERLANDS

BRUNO CHABAS, FRENCH


SIKA AG, BAAR, SWITZERLAND CASE PETROBRAS

Sika AG is a specialty chemical company for building and motor vehicle supplies, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.

It has a leading market position in

both the building sector and the automotive

industry.

The Swiss RUAG Arms Factory in cooperation with Moscow Mar 28, 2018

A case of the Federal Government


AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BANK UBS AG AND THE RUSSIAN

EXISTE SINCE 2006, THE RUSSIAN HAS A DOMICILE IN TORTOLA

VIRGIN ISLANDS, UK

SWISS FORFAIT S.A. GENEVA


PANAMA PAPERS SWISS COMPANIES

. EDMOND, JACQUES SWISS BANCOR GROUP, SOCIETE, JAVIER MULTIFIDUCIAIRE GENEVE S.A.

UNION DE BANQUES SUISSES DUCRET, MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED MN TRUST MARTI, SUPERMARITIME S.A. (SUISSE)

JORGE L. NORTHWEST TRUST LIMITED (GENEVA CLIENT) SG PRIVATE BANKING (SUISSE)

LOMBARDINI, LIC. CARLO SG PRIVATE BANKING (SUISSE) BARCLAYTRUST [SUISSE] S.A

. BNP PARIBAS (SUISSE)



Share | 
 

 IPCO The complaint

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Admin
Admin
Admin
avatar

Female
Number of posts : 3135
Birthday : 1952-04-20
Age : 66
Reputation : 0
Points : 8506
Registration date : 2007-04-25

PostSubject: IPCO The complaint   Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:38 pm

Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation v IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd (2008)

Summary

The terms of the New York Convention 1958 and the Arbitration Act 1996 did not prevent part enforcement of an award in an appropriate case provided the part to be enforced could be ascertained from the face of the award and judgment could be given in the same terms as those in the award.

Facts

The appellant (D), the state oil company of Nigeria, appealed against a decision ((2008) EWHC 797 (Comm), (2008) 2 Lloyd's Rep 59) permitting partial enforcement of a New York Convention arbitration award. The respondent company (C) had entered into a contract with D to design and construct a petroleum export terminal near Port Harcourt. The project had been delayed by 22 months because, as C contended, D had required substantial variations to the contract works. C's disputed claims to be paid substantially more than the contract price were referred to arbitration in Lagos in accordance with Nigerian law as the contract provided. The arbitrators had issued an award in favour of C in a net amount of US$152,195,971.55. D applied to the Federal High Court in Nigeria to set aside the award. C applied to the High Court in England to enforce the award. The enforcement application was adjourned on terms by Gross J. Some three years later C renewed its enforcement application on the basis that D's challenge to the validity of the award in Nigeria was taking very much longer than expected. Tomlinson J decided that the circumstances justified revisiting the decision on enforcement and gave judgment for the amounts awarded by the arbitrators on two heads of claim. D submitted that Tomlinson J had no jurisdiction to enforce part of the award as he had done and that he should not have revisited Gross J's evaluation of the merits of D's challenge to the award.

Held

(1) The terms of the New York Convention 1958 and the Arbitration Act 1996 did not prevent part enforcement of the award in the instant case. The purpose of the Convention was to ensure the effective and speedy enforcement of international arbitration awards. An all or nothing approach to the enforcement of an award was inconsistent with that purpose and unnecessarily technical. There was no objection in principle to enforcement of part of an award provided the part to be enforced could be ascertained from the face of the award and judgment could be given in the same terms as those in the award. The purpose behind the Convention was reflected in the language of the 1996 Act. Enforcement "shall not be refused" except in the limited circumstances listed in s.103(2) of the Act where the court was not required to refuse but might do so. Under s.103(5) the court could adjourn enforcement but only if it considered it proper to do so. The enforcing court's role was not therefore entirely passive or mechanistic. The mere fact that a challenge had been made to the validity of an award in the home court did not prevent the enforcing court from enforcing the award if it considered the award to be manifestly valid, Soleh Boneh International v Uganda and National Housing Corp (1993) 2 Lloyd's Rep 208 CA (Civ Div) considered. There was nothing which expressly prevented part enforcement in the language of the Convention or the statute. The statute referred to "an" or "the" award, but that did not mean the whole award and nothing but the whole award. Such a construction would be commercially unreal. The word "award" in Part III of the 1996 Act should be construed to mean the award or part of it. To be enforceable it had to be possible to enter judgment "in terms of the award", as it had been in the instant case. The judge had been entitled to order part enforcement of the award in the way that he did. (2) Gross J had concluded that D's challenge to certain heads of claim had a realistic prospect of success on grounds of duplication and inadequacy of reasons. Tomlinson J had been persuaded to reconsider Gross J's decision on duplication. However that exercise did not affect the two heads of claim for which Tomlinson J gave judgment and there was nothing in his judgment which suggested that his decision to allow those parts of the award to be enforced was affected by his re-evaluation of the merits of the duplication challenge. Faced with the fact that no decision had been made by the Nigerian court after three years and none was imminent Tomlinson J was fully justified in enforcing the two unchallengeable parts of the award. He would have made that order irrespective of his reconsideration of the merits of the other claims and it was unnecessary to decide whether it had been open to him to revisit Gross J's conclusion on the merits.
Appeal dismissed
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.campingcarbesinov.com
 
IPCO The complaint
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Need advice please - migraine disability letter for my employer

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Campingcar Besinov BAKER TILLY SPIESS S.A. & THE RUSSIAN COOPERATIONS :: NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION-
Jump to: